Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Fourtyrulz · 03-08-2005, 08:21 AM

Matt,

The personal attacks are childish at best and definitely not appreciated. Ever head of an "ad hominem" argument? Here are the studies referenced in my links:

References
1.Woodward A, Laugesen M. Deaths in New Zealand attributable to second-hand cigarette smoke. A report to the New Zealand Ministry of Health, September 2000.
2.Woodward A, Laugesen M. Morbidity attributable to second-hand cigarette smoke in New Zealand. A report to the New Zealand Ministry of Health, March 2001.
3. Health Sponsorship Council (2002) Youth Lifestyle Survey, Wellington, Health Sponsorship Council

Fact Sheet on Secondhand Smoke
James. Repace, MSc., Physicist
Repace Associates, Inc., Secondhand Smoke Consultants
Bowie, Maryland 20720, U.S.A.
Ichiro Kawachi, PhD, Associate Professor
Department of Health and Social Behavior
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Stanton Glantz, PhD., Professor
Department of Cardiology, University of California, San Francisco
San Francisco, California, U.S.A.

and lastly...

The Oklahoma State Department of Health

Not to mention the vast set of resources referenced in host's link to the NCI.

No would would appreciate being set in front of a smoking campfire, why should anyone put up with it in a public place? If smoking is proven to kill the smoker himself, why would it be any different for those who breathe in secondary smoke? The argument just isn't logical in my mind. Saying that secondary smoke is inconsequential might as well say that smoking isn't bad for you.

Also, simply because you disagree with the facts doesn't make them go away.

03-08-2005, 08:21 AM	#174 (permalink)
Fourtyrulz Psycho Location: io-where?	Matt, The personal attacks are childish at best and definitely not appreciated. Ever head of an "ad hominem" argument? Here are the studies referenced in my links: References 1.Woodward A, Laugesen M. Deaths in New Zealand attributable to second-hand cigarette smoke. A report to the New Zealand Ministry of Health, September 2000. 2.Woodward A, Laugesen M. Morbidity attributable to second-hand cigarette smoke in New Zealand. A report to the New Zealand Ministry of Health, March 2001. 3. Health Sponsorship Council (2002) Youth Lifestyle Survey, Wellington, Health Sponsorship Council Fact Sheet on Secondhand Smoke James. Repace, MSc., Physicist Repace Associates, Inc., Secondhand Smoke Consultants Bowie, Maryland 20720, U.S.A. Ichiro Kawachi, PhD, Associate Professor Department of Health and Social Behavior Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Stanton Glantz, PhD., Professor Department of Cardiology, University of California, San Francisco San Francisco, California, U.S.A. and lastly... The Oklahoma State Department of Health Not to mention the vast set of resources referenced in host's link to the NCI. No would would appreciate being set in front of a smoking campfire, why should anyone put up with it in a public place? If smoking is proven to kill the smoker himself, why would it be any different for those who breathe in secondary smoke? The argument just isn't logical in my mind. Saying that secondary smoke is inconsequential might as well say that smoking isn't bad for you. Also, simply because you disagree with the facts doesn't make them go away. __________________ the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation. faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. - Merriam-Webster's dictionary Last edited by Fourtyrulz; 03-08-2005 at 08:23 AM..